“HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?”

March 2015 Tamil survivors of Sri Lanka’s War Survivors and Human Rights civil war, in their own words, on Defenders from Northern Sri Lanka in collaboration with: their desires and expectations for justice and accountability, and what is needed to secure meaningful reconciliation and a lasting peace.

HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Contents

Manifesto for Peace ______1 Introduction ______2 Methodology ______3 Findings ______4 Conclusion ______16 Appendix ______17

Manifesto for Peace

The Sri Lanka Campaign firmly believes that in order to achieve lasting peace in Sri Lanka, the demands of the survivors of Sri Lanka's civil war must be met. Those demands are for truth, justice, compensation, and acknowledgement. A true reconciliation process in Sri Lanka would contain the following elements:

 The factual establishment of what took place in the final stages of the war, including the publication of a comprehensive list of the dead, with cause of death where possible, and the names of those detained and those still not accounted for.  Credible investigation and prosecution of senior political and military commanders of the Sri Lankan Army, and surviving members of the LTTE, for their role in the final stages of the war before a court with international oversight and jurisdiction.  The absence of the military from the day-to-day life of Tamils in the north and east.  The return of confiscated land.  A scheme of compensation for survivors of the war, victims of serious human rights violations and their families, not predicated upon any abandonment of the quest for truth.  An acknowledgement from the Sri Lankan Government that war crimes took place, and an apology.  An acknowledgement from the international community that they didn't do as much as they could have to protect civilians, and an apology.  The creation of a memorial to the civilian dead, the cessation of triumphalism on the part of the Sri Lankan Government, and an end to the security services’ practice of preventing any public grieving for those who died in the war.  A fair political solution to the issue of Tamil self-determination.

If you would like to support this call, please sign our petition at: http://chn.ge/19z8jMF

The Sri Lanka Campaign www.srilankacampaign.org @SLCampaign

HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Introduction

After any war ends there must be serious discussion about how best to ensure that peace will be lasting and sustainable. But in Sri Lanka, the government of Mahinda Rajapaksa had no interest in such discussions, believing instead that peace could be secured through the manifestly unsustainable means of large-scale economic development combined with continued military occupation of majority Tamil areas, particularly in the north and east of the country.

It would be premature to suggest that there has been a sea change in Sri Lanka now that President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe have replaced the Rajapaksa clan. Indeed, the intimidation, harassment, and surveillance experienced over the last month by the activists who wrote this report would suggest that little has changed in the conflict-affected regions of Sri Lanka. A pessimist would suggest that it is unrealistic to expect much change given that Sirisena and Wickremasinghe are children of the same system, and subject to the same structural constraints that produced the Rajapaksa regime. Even an optimist would concede that with the best will in the world, policy in the north of Sri Lanka is not just determined by the political executive, but by a military and security apparatus which has so far remained unchanged under the new government.

Nevertheless, taken together, the change in government and the approaching conclusion of the investigation mandated by the UN Human Rights Council (OISL) make this a good time to ask what kind of a peace Sri Lanka should have, and what is needed to make this peace sustainable.

This is a process that involves some difficult compromises: at what stage does the need to move on trump the need for further investigation? Is there a trade-off between reconciliation and justice, and should some crimes be left unpunished for the sake of harmony between communities? What has been happening in Sri Lanka until now has been so far removed from a process of meaningful reconciliation as to render such questions moot. But at some point they will need answering, and the only meaningful answers will be those that satisfy the people most directly affected by the war.

We know from history that, to be successful, reconciliation processes must put the needs of victims and survivors of atrocities at the centre of decision making. Only victims and survivors can determine when it is time to move on and how, and what forms of justice and healing are required. In the context of a “victor’s peace” such as Sri Lanka, it becomes all the more important not to lose sight of perspectives of victims and survivors from the community identified with the losing side, whether or not they actively supported its leadership.

In this paper, we hear from the Tamil community, specifically from those who have lost a loved one or who have had a family member “disappeared”. These are the people, above all others, that a meaningful reconciliation process must satisfy. The same exercise could usefully be repeated among those who have suffered in the Sinhalese and, particularly, Muslim communities, since any effective reconciliation process will have to take into account their grievances as well as those expressed here.

But since the demands expressed in this paper come from the community which is most dissatisfied with the situation in Sri Lanka as it stands, we can confidently say that reconciliation will fail if they are not met.

Page 2 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Methodology

This report represents the Sri Lanka Campaign’s attempt to articulate the views expressed by those most directly affected by the last stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war: those who lost family members during the final stages of the conflict.

Even under Sri Lanka’s new government, those living in conflict-affected regions continue to face intimidation and surveillance by Sri Lankan security and intelligence structures. To date, there is no evidence that state apparatuses in the north and east of Sri Lanka are undergoing a transformation of attitude towards civil society, as appears to be starting to take place in the south. Moreover, the climate of fear that persists among these groups, and which has been built up over decades, would require both a complete change in political climate and a significant passage of time to subside. For this reason, meticulous care was taken to preserve the anonymity and security of those involved and it is not possible to give exact details as to the number of participants or their location.

What we can say is that this report is based on the views, and in many places is in the words, of participants who took place in a series of focus group meetings approximately one month after Maithripala Sirisena was elected President of Sri Lanka. There were more than 15 and fewer than 20 of these focus groups which took place across four of the five districts of Sri Lanka’s Northern Province. There were more than 150 participants and fewer than 200.

All of the participants were Tamil and all had an immediate family member disappear or die during the final stages of the war. To avoid, to the extent possible, the groups becoming self-selecting, participants were randomly selected from among the far larger group of such people known to the focus group facilitators. In one district, security concerns led to an overrepresentation of the Christian Tamil community, but across the groups as a whole, the demographic makeup of participants generally reflected the wider demographics of the Sri Lankan Tamil community of the Northern Province.

Group discussions were held in Tamil and facilitated by experienced human rights activists, who need to remain anonymous for security reasons. Participants were led through a structured discussion based upon questions, which are included as an appendix to this document. The Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice has conducted a review of the approach and methodology used by these facilitators. Facilitators recorded what was said by the groups in English, along with notes on the makeup and nature of the groups.

These notes were then processed by the Sri Lanka Campaign Director into this report. In so doing the Director made a conscious effort to avoid editorialising the statements of survivors. In this work, they were informed by a number of visits to the north of Sri Lanka over the last 4 years and by many conversations, in English or via a translator, with survivors. The report was also shared with the facilitators so that they could confirm it was a fair representation of the discussions.

Clearly this report does not speak for all survivors of the final stages of Sri Lanka’s war. But it represents an honest and comprehensive attempt to put the survivor voice at the heart of discussions over Sri Lanka’s future.

Page 3 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Findings

1. THE NEED FOR TRUTH

The primary need – overwhelmingly and unanimously SURVIVORS IN THEIR expressed by those represented at the focus groups – was to OWN WORDS: TRUTH find out what had happened to the disappeared. Survivors were willing to make every other consideration secondary to “First off, even before clearing the this one. military from the villages, the new government has to tell us what The strong feeling was that the lack of transparency over the happened to our children” Government of Sri Lanka’s rehabilitation and detention system, and totemic examples such as the photograph that “It is not that they have to release emerged of the son of Jeyakumary Balendaran (a mother of them at once - but at least give us the disappeared who was detained without trial for nearly a the name lists first and then let us year), mean that even six years after the war ended family know the detention period or the members of the disappeared hold out hope that their loved punishments” ones could still be alive. “I keep this ‘pottu’ on my forehead This has placed their lives in limbo, unable to grieve or to with a belief that my husband is move on, tortured by the unanswered question: “what alive - because we have not seen happened?” our husbands dead with our own eyes - they were taken away alive. It is therefore essential to have a reconciliation process to So we think that the people who answer this question. Any such process that does not do so were captured are somewhere alive would be seen as meaningless to these survivors. and that they will be released The UN OISL report should help to establish the facts about someday.” what took place during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war, “We are not scared because we are and to generate an official narrative of events. But what is protesting for our things, not for needed is not merely a general account of what took place, but politics. We want our loved ones.” specific individual-by-individual responses. “I have lost both our children. Ever One of the main ways in which this can be achieved would be since then I have never eaten for the Government of Sri Lanka to provide a full, transparent, peacefully. I have approached all and candid account regarding the details of its detention and possible avenues. But to date I have rehabilitation programme. Simply stating the numbers never received any reply. No detained, and how many remain in detention would be a good solution. Look at Jeyakumary and start, but names must follow. It is widely understood that the her daughter - we protested Government of Sri Lanka kept a list of those detained in 2009, together. She is still in the prison and her daughter somewhere else.” and the publication of that list is a key demand of survivors. Similarly, at various points the Government of Sri Lanka has

Page 4 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

claimed to have a list of all those who died during the final stages of the war. Whilst this list was doubtless a propaganda “This government should tell us tool, the Government of Sri Lanka coming forward with all the what happened to our children. information that it has as to the whereabouts and fates of The previous government took our individuals, is a vital part of the reconciliation process. children away. They have to tell Indeed, this was a key recommendation of Sri Lanka’s own what exactly happened. We will not Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). accept it if the government just Those consulted were adamant that any Government of Sri tells us our children are missing. Lanka would not come forward with this information unless We have not seen anything with our put under significant pressure from the international own eyes. We are hopeful that they community. Sri Lanka’s history suggests that they are are alive.” doubtless right about this. But a farsighted Sri Lankan government would recognise that this information is absolutely integral to the long-term future of Sri Lanka and would come forward with the information readily.

SURVIVORS IN THEIR OWN WORDS: JUSTICE 2. THE NEED FOR JUSTICE

“The LTTE - the leaders all ran The second strongest demand expressed in the focus groups was away. In the end it was innocent the need for justice. It was almost unanimously agreed that the people like us who suffered. They perpetrators of crimes must be punished. One or two people took all our money and went.” stressed that finding out what happened was more important than prosecutions (“What use is revenge to me? Will it bring my “There needs to be inquiries and son back?”), but overall there was a visceral need to see the punishments which will be a good perpetrators of the crimes participants had suffered stand trial lesson for others not to repeat this for what they did. again.”

There was disagreement as to whether senior surviving “How will we affected say ‘let them members of the LTTE leadership should stand trial (the “top be happy’ after what they have 10%” as one group put it). Many in the group expressed a done?” passionate enmity towards the LTTE, not just for kidnapping their children, but also for abandoning them in the final stages of “If there is no proper punishment the war. Many recognised the LTTE’s culpability in the trapping the following ministers will also of civilians in the line of fire, and some accused them of firing on commit the same mistakes. So the people trying to flee the ‘No Fire Zones’. previous wrongdoer should be punished so that this will not However, others felt that the LTTE were defending them from happen again.” annihilation and for this reason should be pardoned. Some others felt that while the LTTE should on principle stand trial, in

Page 5 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

practice there was no one left to try. The four individuals they felt that it was absolutely vital stand trial were former President “There should necessarily be Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Defence Secretary Gotabaya punishment for the responsible Rajapaksa, former Commander of the Armed Forces Sarath persons who committed war crimes Fonseka, and TMVP leader Col. Karuna (Vinayagamoorthy in the last days of the war. Only if Muralitharan). The strong feeling from the groups was that any this happens will there be pressure sort of amnesty for these four would be completely out of the on the future generation not to question. follow the same tracks. Be it the In response to the question “who do you think should be president, minister or army punished?” the following names were mentioned the following commanders - they need to be number of times (also see figure 1). punished.”

Mentions: Organisation/Individual: “It should be a mechanism with 14 Mahinda Rajapaksa both. With the international oversight and with local people 9 (11) Sarath Fonseka (Nine indentified Fonseka involved.” by name, whereas two called for prosecution of the leaders of the Sri Lankan “If the national mechanism will Army) give us a good solution we will work 10 Colonel Karuna (Vinayagamoorthy with them. But it is clear with all Muralitharan) what has happened so far that they 10 The LTTE will not give a good solution. We 9 Gotabaya Rajapaksa have always been fooled so many 4 Pillayan (Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan) times. We are not ready to trust this government.” 3 KP (Selvarasa Pathmanathan) 2 The Leaders of the Sri Lankan Army “Just international monitoring will 1 The EPDP (led by Douglas Devananda) not be appropriate - they will just 1 Maithripala Sirisena (Defence Minister overlook the activities and leave. during the final few weeks of the war. The They have to be together in the full quote from a survivor was, “Maithri was commission with the local people.” also a person who was with the “We will not trust anything that Government when the war was going on right? If so he must be punished.” involves the Sri Lankan government. Because of this we 1 Namal Rajapaksa want the UN involved”

It is important not to read too much into these figures, which do not result from a comprehensive quantitative process. The key finding was that there were strong, but mixed, views on the need to punish the LTTE and a very strong desire to see Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sarath Fonseka, and Col. Karuna brought to justice.

Page 6 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

It is worth noting that there was no real hunger for prosecutions of lower level members of the Sri Lankan armed forces or the “The inquiries at the national level perpetrators of individual acts, beyond a general feeling that have only hurt us. Because of this wrongdoers needed to answer for their actions. However, we have no trust. We have trusted beyond the desires of victims, Sri Lanka is suffering from different governments time and continued human rights violations, which stem from a culture of again. We cannot trust the impunity engendered by an ongoing lack of accountability. More government at all - we will never do comprehensive prosecutions may be required to bring an end to that again.” this culture of impunity. “Whatever whether this is a national How can justice be achieved? There are essentially five options (see Figure 2). mechanism or an international mechanism - if our children come 1) A totally domestic mechanism back that is enough for us.”

Even if the domestic accountability processes in Sri Lanka “Last time the commission was like a received the structural, constitutional and cultural overhaul that fake thing. But we testified because would be required to bring them up to international standards we thought we will get a good and ensure that justice is meaningful, this option was totally solution, but we did not.” rejected by survivors. They felt that too many failed domestic accountability processes had entirely eroded any trust that they could ever have had in the Sri Lankan Government to self- administer justice. They said that, were yet another domestic accountability process to take place, they would participate in the faint hope, shorn of expectation, that it could lead to them finding their loved ones, but that they did not expect to find justice through such a process.

2) A domestic accountability process with significant international support and oversight (such as The War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BWCC))

Or

3) A hybrid domestic and international mechanism (such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL))

The difference between these two mechanisms is that in a wholly domestic process you can have international judges (sometimes sitting alongside or being gradually replaced by domestic judges), internationally drafted laws, and an international structure, but final decision making rests with a domestic body; whereas in a true hybrid mechanism, jurisdiction is shared between a domestic and international body.

It is worth noting that in the case of the BWCC their work had an inbuilt failsafe in that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) would prosecute anyone that the BWCC did not. It is also worth noting the different context (a ‘victor’s peace’) in Sri Lanka.

Survivors were open to the idea of such a mixed approach, but expressed some concerns. Some even suggested that a mixed approach was the best approach. All were adamant that any accountability process had to be locally led and survivor driven, and many felt that this was more likely if the process was – in part – local.

Page 7 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

However, they were exceptionally sceptical of any local mechanism’s ability to deliver justice, and thus would only accept one if there was a very significant role for the international community. One group felt that having international oversight would be sufficient, but all the other groups felt that international involvement had to go much further. Several groups suggested that a mixed approach would only be acceptable if the national mechanism was entirely subservient to the international mechanism.

Of course, in addition to the desires of survivors, there is a need to reform Sri Lanka’s domestic accountability processes for its own sake and for the long-term development of good governance in Sri Lanka. However, trust has been eroded to such an extent that even a reformed domestic mechanism will not hold the confidence of the Tamil community in the foreseeable future.

4) Ad hoc international justice (i.e. a combination of prosecutions taking place under universal jurisdiction and bilaterally)

Or

5) An international court (a referral to the International Criminal Court or a special tribunal)

There was clear support for an international mechanism and a clear understanding that this mechanism had to be established by the United Nations. Currently there doesn’t seem to be any international appetite for this, but it remains a key wish of survivors and victims.

As Sri Lanka is not signed up to the International Criminal Court, as the court would not have retroactive jurisdiction even if Sri Lanka were to sign up now (unless they were to specifically request it), and as the Government of Sri Lanka seems intractably opposed to international mechanisms, the establishment of an international court or referral to the International Criminal Court would almost certainly require a referral by the UN Security Council. Given the lack of global appetite for international justice with respect to Sri Lanka it seems unlikely that this will happen any time soon, although the examples of Libya and Darfur show that it is not impossible, whilst North Korea demonstrates that it is possible to develop a head of steam behind the idea by requesting an ICC referral from other UN bodies, such as the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, which then forward the request along with greater gravity.

A perhaps more feasible (but less desirable) option, given that these survivors have only identified four people for whom justice is non-negotiable, is for each of the four to be prosecuted individually by courts of appropriate jurisdiction. Gotabaya Rajapaksa as a US citizen and Sarath Fonseka as a Lawful Permanent Resident are liable for prosecution in the United States. It is possible that at some stage Mahinda Rajapaksa and Col. Karuna may place themselves in a position where they can be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction.

Of course, any prosecution of these four individuals must be preceded by a credible and independent investigation and should be conducted in full accordance with internationally accepted standards of due process.

Page 8 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Figure 1:

Infographic representing a small sample survey of views from survivors of Sri Lanka's civil war taken in focus groups held in Northern Province (2014). Figures indicate the total number of times an organisation/person was mentioned in response to the question, "Who do you think should be punished?"

Page 9 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Figure 2:

Options for accountability by political will (international and domestic). Colors, Green to Red, indicate the approximate level of enthusiasm among participants for that particular option.

Domestic Mechanism with International Support and Oversight (e.g. War Crimes Chamber of the Court for

Bosnia Herzegovina)

Increasing Hybrid Justice Domestic Will Mechanism (e.g. Special Court for for Domestic Sierra Leone)

Accountability Mechanism Without International Oversight (e.g. The Presidential

Commission on ‘Ad Hoc’ International ICC Referral by Missing Persons) Justice (i.e. bilateral the UN Security prosecutions taking place Council (e.g. under universal Darfur 2005,

jurisdiction) Libya 2011)

Increasing International

Will for Accountability

Page 10 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

3. THE NEED FOR DEMILITARISATION

The survivors were clear that the significant military presence in SURVIVORS IN THEIR the Northern Province was one of the main barriers to the return OWN WORDS: DEMILITARISATION to normal life, and insisted on demilitarisation as one of the most AND LAND important steps that could be taken towards reconciliation.

They were surprisingly pragmatic on the question of how this “We are worried about the girl could be achieved and understood that it was unrealistic to children in our village - their expect the Sri Lankan army to downsize overnight. Some did not even expect a significant reduction in troop numbers in the safety” Northern Province. However, what they insisted on was that the “Police are ok. When the army is Sri Lankan Army be confined to barracks. there, there is always an The survivors described a state of near constant intimidation and expectation that there will be harassment from Sri Lankan military personnel, coupled with problems.” significant restrictions on freedom of movement caused by army “We do not have freedom of roadblocks. They report that this situation has not changed at all mobility. We are not assured of as a consequence of Sri Lanka’s change of government. Indeed, what will happen once we go out of many reported recent incidents of intimidation and harassment. our homes.”

“The military should be confined to 4. THE NEED FOR A RETURN OF TAMIL LAND a specific area - not in the village.”

“If they do not take the military The confiscation of land by the military and the Government’s from the lands of the Tamil people refusal to return this land – another aspect of the militarisation similar things will happen again.” issue – was a major source of grievance for those present. “All these army camps should be According to a cabinet decision of 11 February 2015, “[a] large shifted. Only then can we live extent of land from the 11,639 acres … has been already released.” However, this still leaves a considerable amount of land without fear.” under military control. One of the largest continuing areas of “This is not that big boss’s land - military control is the 6,152-acre Valikamam High Security Zone. this is my ancestor’s land. I was The 11 February cabinet decision announced release of 220 acres born and bred there. I married of this land with a view to releasing a further 780 acres in months there and I brought up my children to come. This leaves 5,151 acres in Valikamam and significant there. This land should be areas elsewhere under military control, with no plan for release. evacuated by the Navy.” It is the Sri Lanka Campaign's view that significant international pressure will be necessary to secure the release of this land and to meet the demands of survivors in this regard.

Page 11 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

5. A SCHEME OF COMPENSATION THAT IS NOT PREDICATED UPON THE ABANDONMENT OF TRUTH SEEKING SURVIVORS IN THEIR OWN WORDS: COMPENSATION Most of those present felt that a compensation scheme was a vital part of any reconciliation process, with those that disagreed merely feeling that it was a lower priority than “We cannot buy the lives we lost but we other issues (“we are not asking for compensation, we are can buy other things. My husband is just asking for our children back”). The general consensus missing and all the other women here was that the loss of the primary breadwinner in so many have the same problem - their husbands households was causing significant hardship and poverty are missing. When a head of the house and thus a scheme of compensation was required both as a is not there, there are lots of matter of natural justice, and to meet basic needs. problems”.

There was some discussion of, and support for, non- “A lot of people are living with poverty monetary forms of reparation, such as investment in issues alongside the disappearances. If education. In general, however, this idea was viewed with there is a proper addressing of this with suspicion due to its association with the Rajapaksas’ flawed good will we will accept it. We will not idea of “development as reconciliation”. accept any compensation which has a There were very strong views as to how a compensation political motivation to it.” scheme should be managed, with strong suspicion that the “The people who died because the Government of Sri Lanka would use compensation schemes government committed war crimes - the to undermine support for processes of truth telling and government should be responsible in justice. The groups were adamant that they would rather forego compensation entirely than receive it under those giving everything to the families from circumstances. education till marriage to the children.” The strength of feeling on this issue is largely down to the fact that compensation has thus far been closely entwined “At least samurthy (prosperity) should with the acceptance of death certificates. Many survivors be given to the old people who cannot find that unacceptable, as the existence of a death certificate work in the paddy fields. All the young is then used to close missing person cases. Family members children who could work and earn are of the disappeared feel that while it is quite likely that their dead today.” relative is dead, to accept a death certificate for them would be to accept that the matter has been drawn to a conclusion when it has not. They feel that while questions still remain about their loved ones’ whereabouts and fate, the issuing of a death certificate was dishonest and could prevent them from finding out the truth. Furthermore, they feel that accepting compensation on these terms is tantamount to trading justice for money, which is not something they are willing to do.

It is possible that a domestic compensation process can be designed and implemented which would satisfy local demands. However, this would require a completely different approach and attitude from that previously

Page 12 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

seen. It might therefore be preferable if the United Nations were to facilitate the creation and curation of a voluntary SURVIVORS IN THEIR fund for reparations to victims of violations by all sides, potentially expanding this scheme in the future to include OWN WORDS: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT fines and forfeitures. This fund could accept donations from within and outside Sri Lanka and distribute those donations to victims identified by OISL. Potential models for such a “Ban Ki Moon is also a person who should fund include: the International Criminal Court’s Trust Fund be responsible for this issue. I thought for Victims, the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Human he was the UN head. He knows pretty Trafficking and the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of well how many people were killed and Torture. how.”

“Even if they give apology our dead are 6. THE NEED FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND not going to come back.” APOLOGY “We did not get enough support from the international community. If there Acknowledgement and apology on both sides is an was support this many people would important part of any successful reconciliation process. In have not died.” Sri Lanka too it will play an important role. However, when this was discussed with survivors they emphasised that “There has been a mistake done. That they were less interested in an apology and more interested needs to be acknowledged by the in the truth and justice. international community. If the people This suggests that it is perhaps too early in the process to would have not been brought into the talk about apologies, and that justice will need to be ‘safe zones’ many people would have pursued – at least in part – before this issue can be revisited. been saved.”

Interestingly, survivors were more emphatic about an apology from the international community. There was a very strong feeling among survivors that the international community had abandoned them during the final stages of the war, that it could have done more to protect them, and that it did not.

In part, this perception may stem from LTTE propaganda during the final stages of the war, which pedaled the idea that the international community (either in the form of UN peacekeepers or the Indian Government) would intervene at the last minute. The LTTE used this notion as justification to keep fighting to the bitter end.

Even so, the strong belief among victims and survivors that the international community owes them an apology is justified. The international community did indeed appear to turn a blind eye towards the suffering caused during the final stages of the war, and despite a few countries weighing in with concerned statements at the very end, there was no serious attempt to stop the violence, even when it became obvious that the casualties were colossal.

Page 13 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Sri Lanka was not formally discussed in the Security Council and then only at a very late stage in the Human Rights Council, where the Sri Lankan Government managed to win support for a resolution effectively congratulating Sri Lanka on its conduct. After the war, despite a civilian death toll many hundreds of times higher than Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which took place at roughly the same time and dominated international attention, the Government of Sri Lanka did not receive a fraction of international opprobrium. Indeed Sri Lanka was awarded chairmanship of the Commonwealth in 2013.

7. THE NEED TO GRIEVE AND FOR MEMORIALISATION

The Sri Lankan Government destroyed all the cemeteries in SURVIVORS IN THEIR which the LTTE had buried their dead for fear that these OWN WORDS: MEMORIALISATION areas would become a shrine to the Tigers. However, for those whose loved ones were buried in these cemeteries this remains a significant cause of resentment and anguish. “We are unable to light a single candle Furthermore, the Sri Lankan military has been very heavy to the children we lost. But the handed in preventing any kind of mourning from taking military who killed all these people place, regardless of whether the deceased was a member of are being praised and their victory is the LTTE or not. This leaves many in the Tamil community celebrated.” “It was a cemetery - feeling unable to grieve for their lost loved ones and lacking there was no need for that to be the catharsis that brings. destroyed. We will never let anyone shatter a cemetery right? Because they At the same time, the Government of Sri Lanka has erected did that, the respect for human beings large numbers of ostentatious and triumphalist war is diminished.” memorials across Tamil majority areas of Sri Lanka. These memorials, often adorned with martial or religious imagery, “We will not give up - our siblings died do not support reconciliation but rather seek to reinforce the there - so we want to go there and idea of the victor and vanquished. They cause resentment light candles - but we are doubtful and humiliation in the local population. whether this will be allowed.”

The Sri Lankan Government needs to change its attitude and “We all went to my son’s grave last allow the Tamil community to mourn their dead. As well as year to see the place and to say applying pressure to this end, the international community prayers to the loved ones. The military and non-governmental organisations could help this process chased us all away. They didn’t even by encouraging and facilitating memorialisation and let us light a candle inside the church” grieving, perhaps by supporting the Northern Provincial Council, or local civil society, in the construction of an appropriate monument.

Page 14 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

8. THE NEED FOR A LASTING POLITICAL SOLUTION

While there was no appetite for a return to violence, the root SURVIVORS IN THEIR causes of the conflict remain. The survivors feel OWN WORDS: POLITICAL SOLUTION discriminated against and do not feel they have any stake in the Sri Lankan nation as currently constructed.

While almost every single person voted for Maithripala Sirisena in the 2015 Presidential Election, they did so largely “We would like equal rights for the without any real hope or expectation that it would change Tamil people. Something like a federal much with respect to ground conditions in the Northern mechanism.” Province. For many, a vote for Sirisena was simply a vote against Rajapaksa. It is now up to Sirisena to surpass their “We all should all live without any race expectations. In the long term, a political solution which or religious discrimination.” addresses Tamil grievances and gives Tamil people a real say “We do not want any political in the running of their communities remains as important interference and military interference now as it ever has been. Arguably it is more important now, in our life. This is what we are if a lasting peace is to be salvaged from the brutal victor’s expecting. We should live peacefully.” justice that has reigned to date. “We should be treated as human

beings and not as Tamils. We cannot be crushed by the Sinhalese forever.”

“We need our rights and our own lands.”

Page 15 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Conclusion

In order to achieve lasting peace in Sri Lanka, the demands of the survivors of Sri Lanka's civil war must be met. Those demands are for truth, justice, compensation, and acknowledgement. The publication of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) at the September session of the Human Rights Council should provide an opportunity to set in motion processes to allow this to take place.

Yet survivors fear, with good reason, that once the report is published international attention will wane and that the question of accountability will be left to domestic mechanisms in which they have no confidence. Further, while these domestic mechanisms doubtless have a role to play, here too pressure from the international community will be vital in ensuring that they undergo the reforms and cultural and structural changes that will be required to ensure that their impact is positive.

The Sri Lanka Campaign are determined that the publication of the OISL report must be the start of the process and not the end of one, and that the international community must continue to push hard to keep the demands of victims and survivors at the centre of this process.

That is why we are today launching a campaign to support the voice of survivors. The campaign will start with a petition which can be read and signed online here: http://chn.ge/19z8jMF

The campaign will end when survivors say that it is time for it to end.

Page 16 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

Appendix

Sample Discussion Outline and Guiding Questions for Workshops

 Who did you vote for?

 What were your reasons for voting?  Do you still think that these reasons are valid?  What is your trust level in the current government?  What sort of expectations do you have from the current government when it comes to disappearances and war crimes?  What about food prices and the impact they have had?

 Do you think there should be inquiries and prosecutions for alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka?

 If so, who do you think should be punished?

 What kind of mechanism do you think would be trustworthy and provide justice for alleged war crimes and disappearances?  An entirely domestic mechanism - initiated locally, involving local people and without international involvement?  A mechanism with both local and international involvement, with both parties working together collectively?  An entirely international mechanism?  Some other mechanism?

 What do you think of the support provided by the international community to protect civilians during the war?

 Is there a need for an apology or for acknowledgement from the parties to the conflict and the international community?

 Does the government need to provide any compensation? If so, what and how?

 What about mourning?

 Do you have any other requests?

 What needs to be done to further reconciliation?  How does the existing military presence affect the prospects for reconciliation?  Is there a need to reduce the military presence, and if so, why?  How does monitoring by the security forces (CID/TID) affect the prospects for reconciliation?

Page 17 HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE?

 Are improvements to livelihoods important for reconciliation?  What impact to disappearances have on the prospects for reconciliation?  Are there any other issues which are important for reconciliation?

 What does peace mean for you?

 What does justice mean to you?

 Do you all agree to the use of these discussion points in the manner discussed?

Page 18